I just reread pages 198-200 of Worthen's book to see if there was something Sandy got that I missed on first reading.

Worthen gives inerrancy a fair shake, even quote Packer and Pinnock, and talks about Howard Colson's 1960's BSSB attempt to bring some modern thought into Sunday School lessons for the people in the pew he called godly.

But these good faith efforts were hijacked by the birchism of Pressler and Jesse Helms. Worthen comes to the same conclusion 80 percent of fair minded literate folks have come to regard the takeover.

How Sandy misrepresents that in good conscience is quite annoying to put it mildly.

Hope some of you folks will look at the same passage to help me if I'm missing something.

Stephen Fox wrote:Remind me again by name that great group of fundy takeover minds that are moving the church and society forward. As for me I like what the pantheon of my friend Balmer in the Time Mag cover story last week on Barbara Brown Taylor

Moving the church and society forward are two different things. If you read the New Testament, and consider it authoritative (whether you apply inerrancy or not) the church and society don't move in the same direction, and if they do, the church has taken a wrong turn.

Remind me again that great group of pseudo-intellectuals who are moving the church forward? The church was intended to be the mover, not the follower of worldly wisdom, but the group of pseudo-intellectuals that you always cite do not seem to have an understanding of how the church works as a spiritual body, which is why the left side of the Christian faith is experiencing a steep and devastating membership and participation loss. People clearly trust the conservative evangelicals a whole lot more when it comes to discerning spiritual truth. Of course, it also depends on what you mean by "moving forward." If the acceptance of sinful behavior is "moving forward," you can have it. I'd prefer to be part of a church that at least believes the Bible is the highest level of authority in the church, not "society".

You can re-read your own interpretation into Worthen's book every time you pick it up, but you are never going to get her to say that the SBC was "taken over by fundamentalists." What she asserts, and uses her research to prove, is that the SBC's leadership selection process increasingly reflected the majority conservative theological view that already existed in the convention. She doesn't even really touch on that subject very much, writing as if it were an accomplished fact. She never uses the word "take over" nor does she use language that implies a "take over" occurred. Of course, she's at least smart enough to recognize that an organization cannot be "taken over" by people who already have the ability to fully participate in the denomination's processes.

The definition of "Bible scholar" is the difficulty in this particular "ongoing conversation." Simply investing time by pontificating theories about a text, rather than actually studying and interpreting the text in the literal context in which it was written, with a substantial amount of supporting evidence to interpret the text in context, are two different things.

A degree or two from a subjectively recognized academic ivory tower is not a guarantee that the recipient will have a clear enough understanding or experience of faith to genuinely be a "scholar" in terms of interpreting and teaching from the Biblical text. The idea that Christians eventually turned Jesus into the Messiah and into the Son of God is a presupposition that, by the standards set in place by secular historians and scholars in examining ancient texts, does not hold water. Or as they say down in your neck of the woods, "That dog ain't gonna hunt."

If that's where you are, Stephen, then you probably should stop waiting around to get back into the Collinsville Baptist Church. Is there a Unitarian Universalist congregation near you, or a John Shelby Spong-type Episcopal congregation? You'd be quite comfortable in one of those.

The definition of "Bible scholar" is the difficulty in this particular "ongoing conversation." Simply investing time by pontificating theories about a text, rather than actually studying and interpreting the text in the literal context in which it was written, with a substantial amount of supporting evidence to interpret the text in context, are two different things.

A degree or two from a subjectively recognized academic ivory tower is not a guarantee that the recipient will have a clear enough understanding or experience of faith to genuinely be a "scholar" in terms of interpreting and teaching from the Biblical text. The idea that Christians eventually turned Jesus into the Messiah and into the Son of God is a presupposition that, by the standards set in place by secular historians and scholars in examining ancient texts, does not hold water. Or as they say down in your neck of the woods, "That dog ain't gonna hunt."

If that's where you are, Stephen, then you probably should stop waiting around to get back into the Collinsville Baptist Church. Is there a Unitarian Universalist congregation near you, or a John Shelby Spong-type Episcopal congregation? You'd be quite comfortable in one of those.

The texts, and the dates of writing, of the four gospel accounts of Jesus are confirmed and verified by accepted standards of historical interpretation. It is quite clear that the idea of turning an itinerant, non-conformist Rabbi Jesus into the Messiah, savior and Son of God, could not have developed during the twenty years or so between the occurrence of the events, and the writing of the first gospel account, probably the Q document. Pushing that view into a discussion, and calling it genuine dialogue is nothing more than warmed over tripe. To call that a scholarly discussion is to defame the term "scholarly."

Ed: Sandy as so often is the case, when reading your last two post and starting to think, well Sandy has it right this time and then I get to the disparagement of Fox in the first version and then in the second you sound quite arrogant in your critique of Biblical scholars of non Christian traditions, when you say " It is quite clear that the idea of turning an itinerant, non-conformist Rabbi Jesus into the Messiah, savior and Son of God, could not have developed during the twenty years or so between the occurrence of the events, and the writing of the first gospel account, probably the Q document. Pushing that view into a discussion, and calling it genuine dialogue is nothing more than warmed over tripe. To call that a scholarly discussion is to defame the term "scholarly."

The article only defames those Christian students of scripture who are unwilling to rationally discuss the subject except on their own terms. A non christian and some Christians will read your "It is quite clear that the idea of turning an itinerant, non-conformist Rabbi Jesus into the Messiah, savior and Son of God, could not have developed during the twenty years or so between the occurrence of the events,..." and call it wishful thinking and move on with out you, unless and until you make a creditable case for it being "imposable" for it to have occurred as they believe. Note that I make a distinction between students of Scripture and Scholars who study Scripture.

Far to often we Christians ( note: I include myself) want to quote our spiritual "Cliff Notes" and declare them to override what ever objections to our belief system that come our along. A strong problem to that approach is that the Scholars we attempt to persuade, too often have already read those same Cliff Notes.

If you get into the territory of discussion of a "scholarly" nature that brings the theory that Jesus was just an itinerant, common man's rabbi, and that his disciples turned him into the messiah an the son of God through their writing, you are getting out of orthodox Christian belief and outside the parameters of the core definition of Christian faith. You can consider that scholarly dialogue if you want to, but when you get to that point, it isn't Christian scholarly dialogue.

Stephen throws his intellectual hat outside that Christian circle with his citations of individuals who, for the most part, don't declare "Jesus is Lord," and don't hold a personal belief consistent with the Apostle John in I John 4:1-3. I believe this puts him outside of the left fringe of Baptist thought.

I haven't seen it represented by you here, Ed, but I'll ask the question. Do you think that Jesus' disciples turned him into messiah and savior, or did he come for that purpose and establish that through the evidence presented in the gospels?

Ed: No Sandy, I do not think that Jesus' disciples turned him into messiah and savior. However I do have some understanding of legitimate scholars who promote that line of thinking. But I see the second part of your question, as too nebulous for a definitive reply.

Nebulous? Either it is or it isn't, there's nothing "nebulous" about it. It's hard call someone a "legitimate scholar" that questions the accuracy or legitimacy of something that is an established historical fact according to the methods prescribed by historians to make that determination. The gospels are pretty clear, and consistent accounts which identify Jesus and lend zero support to any theory that the disciples created the Jesus we worship. It's a matter of either accepting the existing evidence or not accepting it. Perhaps "scholarship" in general involves the denial of established fact, but you can't call it Christian scholarship.

Sandy wrote:Nebulous? Either it is or it isn't, there's nothing "nebulous" about it. It's hard call someone a "legitimate scholar" that questions the accuracy or legitimacy of something that is an established historical fact according to the methods prescribed by historians to make that determination. The gospels are pretty clear, and consistent accounts which identify Jesus and lend zero support to any theory that the disciples created the Jesus we worship. It's a matter of either accepting the existing evidence or not accepting it. Perhaps "scholarship" in general involves the denial of established fact, but you can't call it Christian scholarship.

Ed: What are you saying "is or isn't"? It is the 2nd part of your question that I have called nebulous, in it there is a hint of presupposition on your part but what ever you are asking is not specified. Many Jews, Muslims and others do not accept the "Christian view" of Jesus. I don't believe I have called their view "Christian Scholarship". However I maintain that large numbers of those folk, individually and in groups are very good Biblical Scholars. Actually better scholars of the the Christian Scripture than are many professing Christians.

BTW, scholarship often leads to leads to questions regarding "the accuracy or legitimacy of something that is an established historical fact according to the methods prescribed by historians to make that determination." When the Scholar has or believes he or she has reason to to question that which some believe to be established historical fact. (think Galileo) With apologies to some of my good friends, historians are not God, and in my experience the best Historians teach that.

Ed Pettibone wrote: However I maintain that large numbers of those folk, individually and in groups are very good Biblical Scholars. Actually better scholars of the the Christian Scripture than are many professing Christians.

I would agree that many professing Christians are not Bible "scholars" at all, but the word "scholar" is extremely subjective. How would you weigh the "scholarship" of a Muslim study of the New Testament? And of what particular value would that be? I know that there's a cultural bent when it comes to the appearance of open mindedness and "inquiry" among some elements of Christians, but I think there are some powerful contexts of faith that come from the scriptures themselves regarding the interjection of worldly scholarship into weighing matters of faith.

Ed Pettibone wrote: However I maintain that large numbers of those folk, individually and in groups are very good Biblical Scholars. Actually better scholars of the the Christian Scripture than are many professing Christians.

I would agree that many professing Christians are not Bible "scholars" at all, but the word "scholar" is extremely subjective. How would you weigh the "scholarship" of a Muslim study of the New Testament? And of what particular value would that be? I know that there's a cultural bent when it comes to the appearance of open mindedness and "inquiry" among some elements of Christians, but I think there are some powerful contexts of faith that come from the scriptures themselves regarding the interjection of worldly scholarship into weighing matters of faith.

Ed: Sandy I have to admit that my contacts with Muslims are limited primarily to employees in service stations and convenience stores and Medical specialist at the VA Hospital. Our Local TV stations do have few in their news departments. Most of whom wher born in the US and Educated in Upstate NY Colleges and Universities. I do not therefore have no way to weigh the "scholarship" of a Muslim study of the New Testament? Therefor no view of the value of such a study. If you are really interested in pursuit of that question I would refer you to Our ABC-NYS Executive Minister Dr. Jim Kelsey who has served as a missionary in countries with large Muslim populations.

As for Jewish Scholars, I would start with one of Reform Judaism's most prolific writers who was in the Religious Studies program at the University of South Florida when Trudy was doing her undergraduate degree. I would start with his World Religions in America, Fourth Edition: An Introduction.

"The fourth edition of World Religions in America continues its lauded tradition of providing students with reliable and nuanced information about America's religious diversity, while also reflecting new developments and ideas. Each chapter was updated to reflect important changes and events, and current statistics and information. New features include a timeline of key events and people for each tradition, sidebars on major movements or controversies.

The last I Knew Rabi Dr. Jacob Nuesner was teaching at Bard College. But I am not even sure he is still alive.

I have shared the endorsement with several facebook luminaries including Worthenand Balmer and a friend in Americus who has played tennis on President Carter's personal court. She recently was given a guest subscription to Baptists today by a Furman grad, not me.

It has crossed my radar, but I have not had an opportunity to read it. Not sure at this point that it will work its way to the top of my list. I'm working on Sam Harris' The End of Faithat the moment, I've got a couple of extra hours a week now during Wednesday afternoon chemotherapy.